Category: Movies

The Wayans vowed to push back against the woke scolds with a sixth “Scary Movie” feature.

That they do.

The new film features trans characters, pronouns, BLM and other culture war topics. Nothing is sacred or off the table, just as they promised.

The problem? They forgot to make any of the above funny. Not remotely so.

It’s an anything goes affair, scampering from meta yuks to gags only franchise devotees will get. The result? An exhausting example of how NOT to do a movie parody.

Ghostface is back, but this time he’s targeting the teen daughter of franchise regular Cindy (Anna Faris). That’s more or less the plot, folks.

The film pings in so many directions you forget you’re watching a feature film. It’s a series of limp sketches and references to recent horror movies like “Sinners,” “Weapons,” “Longlegs” and “Get Out.”

The characters break the fourth wall to remind us what the story is from time to time. Or how Hollywood treats remakes and reboots.

Or the minor details behind the franchise.

The film begins with a whimper and slowly slides downhill. A recent Oscar nominee anchors the prologue, but she proves far from the best choice for this kind of material. That, plus a brief second prologue, come and go with nary a smile, let alone a laugh.

Uh oh.

We immediately sense this movie was a terrible idea, and 20 minutes later, we’re darn sure of it.

Sitting down for Scary Movie 6.

Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/OWQqdSHNlP

— Worth it or Woke? (reviews) (@worthitorwoke) June 5, 2026

One sequence has a pulse. The three vampire figures from “Sinners” knock on the main characters’ door and perform a TV show theme song. The choice of material is smart, and the reaction to it makes sense. And it’s legitimately funny.

That brief moment suggests what this film might have been. And it’s over in a blink.

You may smile a time or two over a singular quip in “Scary Movie,” especially since the Wayans flood the zone with gags. There’s zero comic momentum afoot. The physical gags are obvious and strained, as is virtually every element of the film.

The newer, younger characters prove forgettable, while the old guard (Faris, Regina Hall and Cheri Oteri) hardly make the case for their return. And while the Octavia Spencer film “Ma” proved a guilty pleasure, leaning so hard on it with Hall’s character makes no sense.

Don’t blame the stars, though.

The ghosts of Gilda Radner, John Belushi and Richard Pryor couldn’t breathe life into this screenplay, credited to Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Craig Wayans and Rick Alvarez.

But will “Scary Movie” trigger the woke scolds as promised? Yes and no. 

That group got triggered by the trailer. Still, it’s hard to find any running gag or joke “offensive” when they’re so poorly written and choreographed.

We’re hungry for comedies that satirize today’s warped world. Yes, this franchise focuses on the horror genre, but a respectable sequel could do both.

Instead, this is a lazy, scattershot dud that delivers the least laughs in the series. A series, by the way, with plenty of dead spots.

“Scary Movie” plays out like a franchise on life support, not one brought back to life to crush the dying woke movement.

HiT or Miss: “Scary Movie” is a sure bet to be on many “Worst of the Year” movie lists. It richly earns it.

Source

Travis Knight’s “Masters of the Universe” is a mighty mixed bag, full of rousing action and choice moments.

It’s also suffering from an identity crisis that matches the struggles of He-Man, the film’s hero.

The story: Adam Glenn/He-Man (Nicholas Galitzine) works at a joyless cubicle job (shades of “The Matrix”) and just-barely hides his secret past from puzzled co-workers. What we know from an elaborate prologue is that Glenn is Prince Adam, the son of Eternia, a magical world that was taken over by the Evil Skeletor (Jared Leto).

Prince Adam was a boy when he and the Sword of Power, which holds the future of Eternia, were sent to live on Earth.

Now, 15 years later, the young heir of Eternia and his sword are reunited – it would have made more sense if Prince Adam had amnesia during this time and took this long to find a sword on Earth due to memory loss and not failed internet searches, but never mind.

Once Prince Adam returns to Eternia, he reunites with his best friend Teela (Camilla Mendes), her father and teacher Man-At-Arms (Idris Elba) and Cringer, the talking green tiger who needed much more screen time. At some point, Prince Adam thrusts his sword into the air, says the magic words, and we’re off into another wild action sequence.

Camila Mendes stars as Teela in new featurette for MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. pic.twitter.com/qQVXCggfKV

— cinesthetic. (@TheCinesthetic) June 3, 2026

Coming from an enormous fan of the toy line, I was ready to embrace this film. The original animated series from Filmation was a passion of my ’80s childhood- I recall begging my mother to record episodes I missed on blank VHS tapes, which I would later watch and rewatch obsessively, as though it were the Zapruder footage.

The Evil Horde Slime Pit, where the heroes would be forcibly doused with “gruesome ooze” into slime monsters and subsequently possessed to join the villainous Hordak, is among my all-time favorite toys. I not only collected the He-Man action figures and comic books but regularly purchased He-Man and the Masters of the Universe Magazine, which covered the arrival of the ’87 film as though it was a new work from Martin Scorsese.

Aside from “Star Wars,” no other toy or clothing line dominated my grade school years more than He-Man.

The 1987 “Masters of the Universe: The Motion Picture,” with He-Man embodied by Dolph Lundgren, no less than the former Ivan Drago, and Skeletor played by a great, fittingly theatrical Frank Langella, is still a source of bliss, despite how completely absurd it is. That movie, even with a cheesiness that lasts the entire 106-minute running time, knew exactly what it was and embraced it.

Here, the filmmakers clearly want this to be “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) but never get the tonal balance of presenting a character comedy with a special effects extravaganza (I’d argue that the 1984 “Ghostbusters” is still the best at this tightrope act).

I wish this new “Masters of the Universe” was more like the take-it-or-leave-it “Krull” (1983), my favorite Arthurian Legend crossed with “Star Wars” flick, than the nudge-nudge, wink-wink “Flash Gordon” (1980). The latter also acknowledges its silliness as a precaution and comes across with an unspoken but obvious apology for being silly.

Rather than just let this be as campy as we all knew it would be, it settles for being a semi-spoof, when everyone involved would have been better off to just emerge unapologetic and sincere with how daffy it is.

As with the ’87 film, Skeletor steals the show. Because he’s deemed a problematic actor, Leto’s involvement here has been downplayed by the studio, but he evokes a Tim Curry-like speaking voice and gives a robust performance.

All of Leto’s scenes with Alison Brie (also great and pitch-perfect as Evil-Lyn) work perfectly and the grand finale is wonderful – the ’87 film famously fell short during its climactic He-Man/Skeletor showdown but not here.

Mild Spoiler: there’s a moment that place Skeletor in a real-world context, a touch that will be divisive but I loved for how funny it comes across.

While this is not Elba’s finest work, he gives Man-At-Arms his professional best (a lesser actor would have had a losing battle with that costume alone). I liked Galitzine as Prince Adam (yes, the origin of the name “He-Man” is belatedly addressed, and it’s the film’s biggest groaner) but I still prefer Lundgren (old habits die hard).

There’s so much CGI on display; why didn’t they just make an animated film? On the other hand, the score by Daniel Pemberton, aided by no less than Brian May on the guitar, makes this one of the must-have soundtracks of 2026.

Yes, the old theme resurfaces, but the rockin’ new music here is a Queen-worthy wonder.

There are lots of Easter Eggs and references to the franchise (note how the villainous, hook-adorned Karg is in both the ’87 movie AND this one!) that will probably only connect with the film’s perceived demographic of 50-year-olds (guilty as charged).

The whole thing would have been better served with a twinkle in its eye and a more sincere approach, instead of repeatedly assuring us that this is the Honest Trailers/ How It Should Have Ended version of a blissfully absurd and glorious cartoon.

Knight previously made “Bumblebee” (2018), which is still exemplary, and few would argue that anyone has ever made a better live-action movie from “The Transformers.” A key to the success of “Bumblebee” is that it invests fully in the emotions of the story and, unlike here, doesn’t constantly pull its punches with we-were-just-kidding jabs to the ribs.

Likewise, Knight’s enthralling animated epic “Kubo and the Two Strings” was one of the best films of 2016.

Knight gives his audience, particularly those of a certain age, dopamine hits of Toys ‘R Us nostalgia, which is appreciated. Yet, had this been more like “Bumblebee,” the emotional stakes could have been countered with a story we could get invested in, no matter how goofy it all comes across.

Knight’s film is awfully fun for the most part but tonally uneven.

If there’s a sequel and they decide to go “dark and grim,” that wouldn’t be right, either, as the franchise (certainly in the ’80s version) sported a sense of humor and never needed to get gritty. However, if the follow-up includes a scene where He-Man is strapped to that dastardly Hordak’s slime pit, giving Eternia’s savior yet another identity crisis, then I’ll pre-order my tickets right now!

Two and a half stars (out of four)

Source

The “Believe All Women” movement is dead, and Hollywood helped kill it.

Industry starlets like Alyssa Milano popularized the term to attack President Donald Trump and future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The moment a major Democrat faced assault allegations – namely future President Joe Biden – Hollywood feminists dropped the phrase like a bad habit.

Why? They’re Democrats first and foremost, and feminists a distant second. And they couldn’t afford to damage Biden as he ramped up his campaign to face Trump in 2020. Former Biden aide Tara Reade’s chilling accusations against the then-Senator didn’t inspire their support.

RELATED: BARIE WEISS SHAMES METOO STARLETS ON HAMAS TERROR

Milano even said the shameful part out loud.

Believing women was never about “Believe all women no matter what they say,” it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default.

Oh.

That hypocrisy wasn’t relegated to Biden. Hollywood feminists also stood down when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo faced serial accusations of inappropriate behavior. That helped crush the fledgling Time’s Up nonprofit, designed to help women against predatory men.

And, more recently, they said nothing as sex-based accusations chased Rep. Eric Swalwell from the California Governor’s race.

Now, the usual suspects are whisper-quiet again. And, once more, it’s all about politics.

It’s undeniable.

Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner may be the most flawed candidate in modern memory.

• Nazi tattoo? Check
• Misleading voters about the nature of said tattoo? Check
• Gross comments about his fellow soldiers? Check
• Damning dating profile on a sickening platform? Check
• Sexting other women while married? Check
• Forcing his wife to defend him on video? Check

A message from my wife Amy: pic.twitter.com/dbDqjssevp

— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 30, 2026

That’s a partial list. And it just expanded to include physical assault allegations, according to the far-Left New York Times.

Hollywood feminists may not want to comment on the tattoo issue or Platner’s comments about the U.S. Military. Fine. We all can’t weigh in on every political narrative or angle.

Starlets should still have something to say about a notable candidate, someone who could become Maine’s next Senator, with an abysmal track record against women.

They may not read The Daily Wire or Breitbart News, but no doubt they’re regular New York Times readers.

So where are the comments? The Tweets? The Instagram Posts? The press conference comments decrying Platner’s alleged actions?

Look as much as you want. You likely won’t find them.

Stars like Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Debra Messing, Brie Larson, Kerry Washington and more protested Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination during the contentious 2018 news cycle.

Now? Silence. Again.

It couldn’t be more predictable or more sad.

Has anyone from Hollywood (not just MeToo activists) weighed in on Platner? Or, perhaps, a few might do so in the days to come? If so, share the comments below and we’ll update this article.

Source

Robert Altman’s “Quintet” (1979) is an eerie, vivid nightmare that begins with the camera panning over a vast, white snowscape, showing us a train long abandoned.

It’s a post-apocalyptic world that, we learn later, has resulted in a planet of unceasing cold and winter weather that few can survive. This is “Mad Max” (1979) in reverse, a world smothered in snow and ice, with wolves always nearby to consume the dead.

Paul Newman stars as Essex, a survivor who wanders through the vast wilderness with his wife (Bridgette Fossey) into a massive structure (filmed inside the abandoned Expo ’67 complex in Montreal). Five million human survivors inhabit this place, with its layout provided by maps consisting of number and color codes.

Inside this structure are large photographs of humankind, hung for inspection, appearing to be reminders of what civilization used to be. What do the survivors do? They sit around and play a board game called Quintet and contemplate murdering one another.

The human survivors are adorned in capes and heavy clothing, looking like inhabitants of “Dune” or attendees of a Renaissance Festival. This new version of human civilization is still driven by survival and beholden to established traditions.

Yet, the shared passion among the few remaining humans is winning at Quintet and surviving another day. In other words, even with the snowy setting, Altman has made another western.

Shot in Montreal on a $7 million budget, this certainly has the feel of a western, albeit one caked in snow and frost, wrapped in take-it-or-leave-it surrealism. Altman is exploring existentialist themes, asking us if we’re all just gamer players awaiting mortality?

Despite the slow pace (the thing most cite when saying they hate this movie), Altman’s film is entertaining- more so than being leisurely paced, its real crime is being profoundly strange.

Altman made this in between “A Wedding” (1978) and “A Perfect Couple” (1979). What came after “Quintet” was “Popeye” (1980), the box office hit that was critically panned and led to years of hit and miss indie films, until “The Player” (1992) and a slew of great films that followed, gave him one of the all-time best comebacks for a filmmaker.

RELATED: WHY ALTMAN’S ‘PLAYER’ HASN’T AGED A MINUTE 

In terms of looking at a long career with drastic ups and downs that came out of taking wild risks on personal material, I’d compare Altman’s trajectory to M Night Shyamalan’s. if “Quintet” was Altman’s “Lady in the Water” (2006) then “The Player” was his “Split” (2016 – my apologies to Shyamalan enthusiasts).

To put it another way, it’s a rare pleasure to see a filmmaker take a chance on their visions, even when their dreams aren’t as interesting to us as they are for them. Altman and Shyamalan never made the same movie twice, and their best films show them taking narrative and tonal risks.

“Quintet” is not on the level with “M.A.S.H.,” “The Player” or “Short Cuts,” but it is, likewise, an original, risk-taking and personal story from a great American filmmaker. Not everything Altman made was great, but even something as out-there as “Quintet” needs to be seen and picked over.

Altman’s film is endlessly fascinating, a visionary work that aligns itself with subsequent works of post-apocalyptic survival. However, when the film was released in 1979, it was ahead of its time, as the only mainstream Hollywood film it truly compared to was “Planet of the Apes” (1968) and this one lacked the novelty of actors wearing simian masks.

Some prior B-movies had also explored the topic, notably the Richard Denning vehicle “Day the Earth Ended” (1955) and a few others. Yet, this was a long way from the days where the pessimism of “The Terminator” (1984) or “The Book of Eli” (2010) would become its own subgenre.

Altman’s film was something truly novel. It is also one of his worst-reviewed films and was almost universally despised by audiences and critics upon release.

Considered a major blunder in ’79, time has caught up with the film, which now plays as a perfect double feature, if not a thematic grandfather, to films like “Snowpiercer” (2013), longform dramatic TV series like “The Walking Dead” (2010-2022) or “The Last of Us” (2023-present ), though minus the zombies, and even the costumed politics of “Game of Thrones” (2011-2019).

The silliness of the film is unavoidable, not just in the far-out premise, but the contrast of the King Henry V-era costumes and phrases like the drinking of “booza.”

How Quintet is played is never explained.

I once showed this to a college film class, where a student who identified himself as a passionate D&D player said he’d watch the film closely and explain the rules. At the end of the screening, he said he had no idea, as the film never really tells us how Quintet is played, only that it’s a life-or-death game.

According to Patrick McGilligan’s 1989 book, “Robert Altman- Jumping Off a Cliff,” “Altman seemed excited about merchandising the possible game- which he believed was going to be another Monopoly- as he was about the film story.”

If only he told us how the heck the game was played!

Made during the days of coin operated video games, Altman suggests that games and gaming will be a passion that keep us going after most of us are gone. He’s probably right.

What does it say about the human race that, after we survived the end of the world, what we would probably do to pass the time is survive, play games and murder when necessary?

A great score by Tom Pierson gives this story its epic grandeur but also a consistent feeling of dread. Altman designed the cinematography to allow the edges of the screen to appear fuzzy in every scene. Why? Perhaps to convey a lens frosting over, or to suggest that what we’re watching is a dream.

After all, like Altman’s “3 Women” (1977), the vision of “Quintet” came to him in a dream. Altman also admitted publicly that he was grieving over the death of his father, which took a toll on his mindset during filming.

Altman and Newman reteamed for this after “Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson” (1976). What an act of faith on Newman’s part to take this on!

While Newman has publicly been kind with his words regarding Altman, McGilligan revealed that “Newman is said to thunder with vulgar phrases whenever the film is mentioned.”

Later, in Mitchell Zuckoff’s 2009 book, “Robert Altman – The Oral Biography,” Newman is directly quoted as stating the following on “Quintet”:

“I think ‘Quintet’ was a valid supposition, but I think the details just got away from us. There weren’t enough details to pile on top of each other to support that as a dramatic supposition. It’s a complicated supposition, you understand. It’s the end of the world and if you’re going to go out, you might as well go out with some excitement. So, the excitement is you track down the guy in front of you and kill him. But you also know there’s a guy in back of you, who’s trying to kill you. You might have gotten that on the second viewing, but most people only get a first. You have to be looking straight ahead but you have to be looking in back of you, too.”

Newman concluded his commentary with this gem:

“I don’t think you have to go out to kill for excitement to keep feeling alive, though (Altman) may have felt that way about the critics.”

Source

“The Amazing Digital Circus: The Last Act” shocked everyone this weekend.

But why?

The theatrical release, actually the final two episodes of the animated series spliced together, made the most money during the critical Thursday frame.

‘The Amazing Digital Circus’ Leads Thursday Box Office With $7.8 Millionhttps://t.co/rWtWSUZTMz

— TheWrap (@TheWrap) June 5, 2026

That’s more than “Scary Movie,” the film which debuts at no. 1 this weekend, and more than horror sensations “Obsession” and “Backrooms.”

A look at one raw number suggests we all should have seen it coming. Two numbers, actually.

The YouTube channel that hosted the show’s pilot episode, Glitch, has 21.3 million subscribers. The show’s pilot episode has generated nearly 440 million views since October.

Plus, the series has 1.2B global online views, according to Fathom Entertainment.

Why wouldn’t “The Amazing Digital Circus” crush the box office competition? ANd it did so on roughly half the number of screens available to its studio competition.

It’s the latest example of YouTube flexing its theatrical might. For those who thought the twin horror hits of “Obsession” and “Backrooms” were just anomalies, think again.

Just imagine how many studio executives will be scouring YouTube for their next directorial hires. They’ve already discovered Curry Barker and Kane Parsons, the directors behind “Obsession” and “Backrooms,” respectively.

Both flexed their creative might on digital platforms, including YouTube, prior to their breakout films.

“The Amazing Digital Circus” did just that on YouTube. Meanwhile, an IP born in the ’80s likely won’t make back its budget after this weekend’s results.

“Masters of the Universe” is on track to earn roughly $30 million on a $200 million budget. Gen Z isn’t as familiar with that property as their parents. Chances are, they’re much more in touch with “The Amazing Digital Circus.”

And the numbers bear that out.

Fathom Entertainment says “Circus” was scheduled for a four-day release. Now, given the audience enthusiasm, its run will go through June 18.

The title also became the largest ticket presales winner in Fathom history.

What’s more impressive? Fans could have waited a few days to see the show’s finale for free online. The final installments will go live on Glitch’s YouTube channel on June 19.

They. Just. Couldn’t. Wait.

The movie business is roaring back this year, and we still haven’t seen “Toy Story 5,” “Moana,” “The Odyssey,” “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” “Avengers: Doomsday” or “Dune 3” yet.

The triple blend of traditional IPs, video game adaptations and YouTube-based stories is the jolt Hollywood desperately needed.

Source

Woke killed the R-rated comedy.

It’s hard to deny. It’s even more challenging to bring them back, en masse, to movie theaters.

The recent “No Hard Feelings” was a good first effort, drawing a modest crowd and delivering a few adult laughs. The recent “Busboys,” released with zero fanfare, pushed the envelope but quickly disappeared from theaters.

Others, like “Ricky Stanicky” and “Balls Up” debuted on Prime Video, not in theaters. The former found some R-rated laughs while the latter proved unwatchable. (Full disclosure: This critic watched the first 25 minutes of “Balls Up” but bailed at that point – so not a full-throated review)

Now, we have our first R-rated comedy smash in a while, courtesy of the Wayans family.

“Scary Movie,” the sixth film in the parody franchise, is set to make an estimated $56 million this weekend in a very crowded, competitive marketplace. That’s gold, especially since the film’s budget came in around $30 million.

That’s just math.

Now, compare that to the reception for “The Breadwinner.” The squeaky-clean comedy gives Nate Bargatze his first major film role. He’s the most popular stand-up comedian in the country by a large margin.

Yet the film opened to a tepid $7+ million in its opening frame, and it’s expected to fall roughly 59 percent this weekend.

“The Breadwinner” will likely crush it on VOD and, later, a streaming service. The comic’s first film simply didn’t lure his legion of fans to theaters.

Audiences chose an R-rated comedy that vowed to offend and cross every line. The latter was literally in the film’s marketing materials.

We’ll need more data to draw more conclusions from this box office information, but it suggests we’re eager to see more bawdy comedies at our local cineplex.

Could “The Hangover: Part IV” be next?

Do you long for the return of R-rated comedies in theaters? Which ones are your personal favorites?

Source

(Photo by Nicola Goode/©Lucasfilm Ltd., Warner Bros. Pictures, ©Sony Pictures Releasing, Disney/Pixar, Paramount Pictures)

Technically, the first day of summer this year will be June 21, but as far as we’re concerned, the summer movie season starts on May 1. With that in mind, we’ve put together a list of all the major theatrical releases — as well as a handful of notable ones on streaming — for you to look forward to during the months of May through August.

Movie ticket and concession prices are as high as they’ve ever been, and we know it’s important to make strategic decisions about where to spend your money. So check out the full schedule below, and plan accordingly.

May | June | July | August

May 1

May 8

May 15

May 20

May 22

May 29

June 5

June 12

June 19

June 26

July 1

July 3

July 10

July 17

July 24

July 31

August 7

August 14

August 21

August 28

Thumbnail images by Miya Mizuno/©Sony Pictures, ©Universal Pictures, Geoffrey Short/©Universal Pictures

Find Something Fresh! Discover What to Watch, Read Reviews, Leave Ratings and Build Watchlists. Download the Rotten Tomatoes App.

Source

Comedian Nate Bargatze has been doing stand-up since 2002, doing the kind of “clean comedy” that made Bob Newhart and Steve Martin a household name. In 2024, he became the highest-grossing stand-up comic, and he continues to play to sold out crowds all across the country. Considering his massive success, you might be wondering why he wanted to do The Breadwinner, his feature film debut, which has him playing a stay-at-home dad.

“Me and the writer, Dan Lagana, talked about writing a movie together, [and] this kind of fit with my stand-up, so we figured let’s just dive into this world.” Bargatze later explains that he wanted to make this a film for the whole family: “I think a lot of [movies] are getting harder to go to as a family […] This is a movie that’s [like] Home Alone or Mr. Mom, that you could see as a family, and that’s not being shown to the kids today.”

Someone who isn’t new to starring in films is Bargatze’s co-star Mandy Moore. She talks about her somewhat return to her comedy roots. “I’m not necessarily yucking it up in this film. I get to be the mom, who keeps things organized […] We’re surrounded by a hilarious group of people [in this film], and my real job was trying to keep it together and not break.”

(Photo by TriStar Pictures / Courtesy Everett Collection. THE BREADWINNER)

In the film, Moore plays Katie Wilcox, the wife of Bargatze’s Nate Wilcox, who gets the opportunity of a lifetime when she lands a deal on Shark Tank, the long-running business reality series that features entrepreneurs pitching to potential investors. Moore talks about what it was like pitching on the show. 

“I’ve never been so nervous. They slotted us in at the very end of the day, so we had an hour and a half. We were on the clock, and we filmed it like a regular Shark Tank episode.” Moore was so anxious, she needed a pep talk from the stage manager. “My heart was beating out of my chest… [But] I wanted it to feel real. This is a woman who’s never been on camera before. The stakes are so unbelievably high.”

Watch the full Big Ticket interview with Nate Bargatze and Mandy Moore above, and check out The Breadwinner on the big screen when it opens on May 29. — Bryce Marrero

The Breadwinner opens in theaters on May 29, 2026. Get your tickets here.

Subscribe to the Big Ticket Podcast: Apple | Spotify

Thumbnail image by Sony Pictures

Find Something Fresh! Discover What to Watch, Read Reviews, Leave Ratings and Build Watchlists. Download the Rotten Tomatoes App.

Source

Arriving 20 years after the original, The Devil Wears Prada 2 hits theaters this Friday, and the first reviews are now online. Fans of the original are sure to enjoy the long-awaited return of Meryl Streep’s Oscar-nominated, fictionalized send-up of Anna Wintour, as well as Anne Hathaway’s Andy and Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci in their supporting roles. But anyone looking for more substance from the sequel may be disappointed.

Here’s what critics are saying about The Devil Wears Prada 2:

Does it live up to the original?

The Devil Wears Prada 2 not only justifies its return but rewards longtime fans with a funny, heartfelt ride through nostalgia.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

Hey, it might even be an improvement on that first flick.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

Effortlessly chic and consistently entertaining, it’s hard to imagine any fan of the original film walking away unsatisfied.
— Yasmine Kandil, Discussing Film

You are unlikely to be disappointed… [The] sequel hits familiar beats that fans will eat up.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

It’s nice to reunite with old characters that we love [and] witness a healthy dose of fan servicing.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

This sequel, for good long stretches, feels like old times — even if it’s hard to imagine fans of its predecessor cherishing repeat viewings to quite the same extent.
— Guy Lodge, Variety

Fans may not find it the superior film in terms of tight storytelling, but it is a deeply enjoyable, worthy follow-up.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

When it comes to fashion and cinema, imitations may sell, but nothing beats an original.
— Nick Schager, The Daily Beast

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

But is it necessary?

The Devil Wears Prada 2 succeeds where many legacy sequels stumble; it finds a reason to exist beyond nostalgia.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

This legacyquel still more than justifies its existence by expanding out from the original’s fashion magazine to the world of print journalism at large, mining more mature emotional content that reflects the many years that have passed since the original.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Unlike most long-delayed sequels that lean too heavily on “remember this?” nostalgia and ultimately fall flat, this film earns its place.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

The sequel is already so last season, despite its fast fashion grasp at relevancy. Unlike the original, it doesn’t have what it takes to stick around.
— Siddhant Adlakha, JoySauce.com

Is its fan service effective?

We get several nods to the original film that strike the right balance of reverence and nostalgia rather than simply hitting beats of remembrance.
— Erik Anderson, AwardsWatch

It understands what made the original resonate in the first place, while updating its message for a new era.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

The movie goes out of its way to give us the fans what we want with winks at “florals for spring,” renewed old grudges, and emotional awakenings.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

Personally, I appreciated the many, many callbacks to the original film — so much nostalgia. Watching the sequel felt like spending time with family.
— Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies

It’s a sequel made with intelligence and respect for both its predecessor and the legions who still love it, so much so that it functions less as a follow-up than as a kind of tribute act.
— Guy Lodge, Variety

(Photo by 20th Century Studios)

Will it actually appeal to journalists?

In a world where journalists and critics continue to lose access and job security, the film becomes a reflection on the fight to preserve journalistic integrity.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

Parent Company. Merging. Downsizing. Content. If you find any of these words and phrases triggering, well, you at least have a supposed ally in this sequel.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

For anyone who works in the contracting media space, Prada 2 may actually feel too close for comfort.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

Hathaway gets to deliver the film’s single allotted f-bomb, which is meaningfully deployed: “Journalism still f–king matters!”
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction

How is the script?

The Devil Wears Prada 2 delivers a screenplay that feels deeply connected to these beloved characters. While it leans into nostalgia, Brosh McKenna also has something timely to say.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

It’s clear they were waiting for the right script and, apart from an unnecessary and miscast love interest for Andy, McKenna has come through in spades.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

McKenna, working this time without the safety net of direct source material, has composed a shiny soap-bubble satire of a doom-laden cultural and journalistic landscape. As bubbles go, this one is easy to burst, but what it reflects back at us isn’t too far removed from the truth.
— Justin Chang, The New Yorker

[McKenna] taps into the current zeitgeist without sacrificing authenticity. The result is something that feels both fresh and familiar, retaining the sharpness that made the original movie so enduring.
— Yasmine Kandil, Discussing Film

While Brosh McKenna smartly ensures that the issues impeding the characters’ progress have matured alongside them, that can’t stop the film from feeling like a retread of the first.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Certain story beats feel forced as the script works to bridge the chronological gap, and the film occasionally loses momentum toggling between corporate commentary and character drama.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

A tighter script would have stopped the middle section from feeling like the movie is spinning its wheels.
— Ian Sandwell, Digital Spy

Is it funny?

Unsurprisingly, this sequel is wildly witty and has no trouble drawing consistent laughter from viewers.
— Yasmine Kandil, Discussing Film

The comedic sequences land brilliantly.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

Could it use more substance?

The movie is best when it sticks to fluffy, fun nostalgia rather than shooting for substance.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

The Devil Wears Prada, for all its pretensions to be About Something, is really just a finely-tuned bit of escapist fluff, and the sequel follows suit.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Beneath the glitz and glamour is a more sentimental core than the original.
— Yasmine Kandil, Discussing Film

While there are some fun moments, some biting comments, and some sarcastic lines, there is a serious social commentary on the state of print media and the transition to an online presence.
— Allison Rose, FlickDirect

Nobody going into the sequel would expect it to be (or even want it to be) a tome on modern venture capitalism, but characters constantly hint at the shifting digital landscape in ways that threaten to further complicate the story. Unfortunately, this never really happens.
— Siddhant Adlakha, JoySauce.com

You can’t help but wish that this edition of the story was a bit more… groundbreaking.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

How is Meryl Streep’s return as Miranda Priestly?

Streep’s rare sequel return finds new spins on Miranda, with cracks in her icy exterior being broken far earlier than in the original film.
— Erik Anderson, AwardsWatch

Streep’s light touch, even with physical comedy like Miranda struggling with the overheads, is impeccable.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

Streep is an old pro at elevating a screenplay, and she does so here with elegant ease, finding lovely grace notes to paint a full portrait of this once-unstoppable woman just realizing she may be on the decline.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Streep is Streep, and we can’t think of a higher compliment to pay her than that.
— David Fear, Rolling Stone

Streep’s second go-round… unfolds as a series of micro-indignities — a plunge from her Olympian perch, one stumble at a time.
— Justin Chang, The New Yorker

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

Is the character still iconically cruel?

Don’t worry… Miranda still has more than enough glorious one-liners.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

Her Miranda may now be too familiar to be menacing, but the hushed, lacerating economy of her line readings, the glassy reserve of her body language, the layers of passive-aggressive meaning she compacts into one arched brow or tight half-smile all invite a kind of in-the-presence-of-greatness awe.
— Guy Lodge, Variety

She is a bit softened, but not entirely — she still reaches for an offensive remark or two as Miranda does. But while those quietly delivered insults are consistent with her character in the first movie, they feel underbaked here.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

The venom has been completely drained from Brosh McKenna’s pen. The insults in the first film stung, but here they merely poke; they’re good for a giggle, but you won’t hear people throwing around lines from this film in a decade.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Bigger than any structural issues is the conceptual problem of Miranda just not being any fun this time around… The character’s forcibly congenial tone is a product of the movie’s half-hearted commentary on changing times.
— Siddhant Adlakha, JoySauce.com

A neutered Miranda is a pointless Miranda… Miranda is far less caustic and scary than before and, consequently, a good deal less funny.
— Nick Schager, The Daily Beast

How is Anne Hathaway’s performance this time?

Anne Hathaway once again proves herself to be the leading lady of a generation… She is such a genuine pleasure to watch in the role.
— Yasmine Kandil, Discussing Film

Hathaway once again shoulders Andy’s mix of steeliness and flightiness with consummate grace, and her shifting perspective reshapes our own prejudices.
— Justin Chang, The New Yorker

Hathaway is effortlessly charming.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

Hathaway is radiant and chipper as ever.
— Siddhant Adlakha, JoySauce.com

Hathaway adds grit to her ingenue version of Andy Sachs, yet still maintains the sense of innocence and righteousness needed to make her an appropriate tour guide for the audience.
— David Fear, Rolling Stone

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

Do Blunt and Tucci get more of their own scene-stealing moments?

Tucci is the movie’s other MVP and gets many of McKenna’s best lines.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

Stanley Tucci’s Nigel, Miranda’s bestie and longtime lieutenant, rises above the mawkish soup with the film’s most genuine performance.
— Julian Roman, MovieWeb

Blunt is having the most fun of anyone in the cast, stealing every scene just as she did in the original film.
— Dan Bayer, Next Best Picture

Emily Blunt isn’t necessarily stealing the show this time — though she remains as unfiltered as ever.
— Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies

Every time you think Blunt has hilariously stolen the movie from her co-stars, Streep, Hathaway, or Tucci pop up to remind you what powerhouses they are and steal it back.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

Are there any new cast additions worth mentioning?

Simone Ashley [is] the stand-out as Miranda’s first assistant, Amari, who isn’t just the “new Emily” and has a fun dynamic with Streep as Amari keeps Miranda in check.
— Ian Sandwell, Digital Spy

Supporting characters like Jin (Helen J Shen), Amari (Simone Ashley) and Charlie (Caleb Hearon) are barely one-dimensional. They’re all surprisingly underwritten and underutilized, despite their opportunities for screen time where they could leave a mark.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction

Does it have any fun cameos?

Cameos from real-world fashion figures and A-listers cement the film as a love letter to the industry.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

What makes The Devil Wears Prada 2 even better, to some extent, is that Anna Wintour filmed a cameo.
— Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies

There are some cameos and casting that seem a bit too “influencer” driven (slight cringe on two in particular).
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

Few make a huge impression. Perhaps that’s because the stars of the original movie have only gotten more famous over the years.
— Liz Shannon Miller, Consequence

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

How is the costume design?

I am by no means a fashionista, but even I can appreciate some of the outfits seen in the movie… The best of the best is featured, making the second film visually stunning.
— Allison Rose, FlickDirect

Many of the outfits are to die for… Costume designer Molly Rogers certainly deserves awards consideration.
— Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies

Molly Rogers, the film’s costume designer and a protégé of the legendary Patricia Field, who worked on the original, will certainly be in awards contention for her contribution. The cast and their costumes look absolutely incredible.
— Julian Roman, MovieWeb

The baroque absurdist touch that couture doyenne Patricia Field previously brought to the proceedings is missed, as is the way the clothes were showcased by the first film’s crisp, gleaming look.
— Guy Lodge, Variety

The fashion here gave me brief pauses… There is something stale about some of [Andy’s] pinstriped suits and looks.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

There are many articles of clothing worn on screen that are objectively fabulous and craveable. There are also many outfits that are fugly as hell.
— Liz Shannon Miller, Consequence

Does the movie look good as a whole?

Visually, the film is a feast. The direction captures the high-octane gloss of the fashion world while grounding it in the sterile, high-stakes atmosphere of modern boardrooms.
— Michael Sowell, Nerdspin

Filming took place in Manhattan and Milan, so some of the visuals include incredible scenery.
— Allison Rose, FlickDirect

The journey is aesthetically pleasing, with a landscape fashioned by production designer Jess Gonchor and her impeccably crafted worlds.
— Courtney Howard, Fresh Fiction

Visually, the film rarely pushes beyond conventional framing, which feels ironic given the bold, stylized world it inhabits.
— David Gonzalez, The Cinematic Reel

(Photo by Macall Polay/20th Century Studios)

Are there any other major problems with the sequel?

A side plot involving Andy being commissioned to write a tell-all book on Miranda looms, heralding in the literal creation of the story that bears the film’s very name, is a bit too on the nose, and a very late in the film reconciliation feels unearned.
— Erik Anderson, AwardsWatch

Remind me, are we critiquing conspicuous displays of wealth or endorsing them? You could get whiplash trying to figure out where this movie stands on ostentatious luxury.
— David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter

After devoting so much screen time to the harsh truths about the state of “#content,” McKenna and director David Frankel still want a happy ending, and the one they come up with is a real deus ex machina move.
— Liz Shannon Miller, Consequence

What I found to be the biggest headscratcher in The Devil Wears Prada 2 is its seemingly happy resolution.
— Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com

Should there be another one?

I don’t know if… there needs to be a threequel in this series, but this trio will always be in dépêche mode.
— Erik Anderson, AwardsWatch

A third film would require the right story — and the full ensemble — but whether or not that happens, The Devil Wears Prada 2 proves there’s still something vital — and relevant — left in Miranda, Andy, Emily, and Nigel’s world.
— Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies

These days, it feels equally likely that The Devil Wears Prada 3 will be released directly to Instagram Stories, in two-minute vertical chunks. At least the clothes will be… interesting.
— Liz Shannon Miller, Consequence

We’re not sure there will ever be another Devil Wears Prada installment, but be glad this one came along.
— Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist

The Devil Wears Prada 2 opens in theaters on May 1, 2026.

Find Something Fresh! Discover What to Watch, Read Reviews, Leave Ratings and Build Watchlists. Download the Rotten Tomatoes App.

Source

Back in 2022, the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll had one of the most successful music biopics ever. This year, the King of Pop is poised to have the most successful one ever, at least on the domestic side. Both certainly had their issues (as films and as men), but now, audiences are dancing in the aisles and critics have been receiving their own criticism for not having the same opinion as fans. Let’s take a look at all the numbers and see what all the fuss is about.

King of the Crop: Michael Thrills with Biggest Opening Ever for Musical Biopic

The biggest openers ever for musician biopics have included Straight Outta Compton ($60.2 million), Bohemian Rhapsody ($51.0 million) and Elvis ($31.2 million). Antoine Fuqua’s Michael just blew them out of the water with $97 million; the eighth-highest April opening ever and Lionsgate’s sixth best. (Four of their top five are the Jennifer Lawrence Hunger Games films and the fifth is the final Twilight.) But not only is that a better number than the combined starts of the recent Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere, Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody, and Back to Black, Michael nearly doubled those three films together entirely ($52.5 million). Granted, another area where this film has a higher number than all those films combined is the budget.

Originally reported at a cost of $150 million, that number went up at least another $15-20 million (some reports are as high as $200 million total) with the reshoots that forced the production to remove any mention of the sexual accusations and legal issues that followed Michael Jackson after the film, in its current incarnation, ends. That is a lot riding on the international success of the film. Producer Graham King certainly banked that with Bohemian Rhapsody, which grossed over $687 million just on the global stage; domestic tallies put it over $903 million total. So far, Michael is up to $217 million worldwide, and it may need to get as high as $500 million just to break even. After Rhapsody, the second-highest grossing music biopic across the globe is still Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis with $288 million for the time being. Now we keep our eyes on the King of Pop to see if his future is bad, a thriller, or even off the wall.

Tales of the top 10: Mario and Project Hail Mary Continue to Fly High

Mario Bros., the original video game, came out roughly four months after the release of Jackson’s album, Thriller. 43 years later The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is knocked out of its three-week perch at No. 1 by the biopic. These brothers are doing just fine, though, with $21.2 million in weekend four to bring their 26-day total to $386.4 million. That is slightly ahead of last year’s A Minecraft Movie, which was at $382.5 million after a $22.7 million fourth-go. That is keeping its domestic estimate in the $425-435 million range. Worldwide, the film has surpassed $831 million. Add another $40-50 million to date, and its going to take another $120+ million on the international side for it to become the first billion dollar film of the year.

Project Hail Mary continues to put up notable numbers. After a mere 15% drop last week and becoming just the 12th film to put up $20+ million in a fifth weekend, the Lord/Miller film fell 35.7% down to a still robust $13.2 million. That put it over $300 million domestic, and it is outpacing both 2019’s Aladdin and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. Each of those films grossed just over $10 million in their sixth weekends and finished with $355.5 million and $337.1 million, respectively. Hail Mary likely falls somewhere in between, but it could get closer to Aladdin, maybe even surpass it if its drops get back to the 20% region. Globally the film is over $613 million, the second to already hit that milestone this year. Only eight Hollywood releases did so in 2025.

Lee Cronin’s The Mummy fell just one place this week but took a much bigger tumble behind the dollar signs, falling 58.6% to $5.6 million. That puts its 10-day total at $23.4 million. Looking at other April horror releases, Mike Flanagan’s Oculus lands just behind it at $21.1 million after a $5.1 million second weekend, while Unfriended leads it by just a little with $25 million after a $6.1 million second weekend. So a final domestic gross around $30 million seems to be in the cards for The Mummy. The film is already over $65 million worldwide and is a success for Warner Bros. and the Jason Blum/James Wan partnership.

A24’s release of The Drama made $2.6 million in its fourth weekend, bringing its total to $44.8 million to pass Hereditary on their all-time chart. If you’re looking for another statistic, how about it being their fifth-best fourth weekend of wide release ever? A24 also expanded Mother Mary wider this weekend, and it was enough to get it into the top 10. The psychological horror film from David Lowery with Anne Hathaway and Michaela Coel grossed $1.25 million for a total of $1.49 million, just one week before another fashion-centric Hathaway film is poised to lead the box office.

For the second time this month, I thought IFC could get headlines for having their biggest opening ever. A couple weeks back, Faces of Death opened to $1.64 million, which ended up being their fourth best ever. This week, Over Your Dead Body, Jorma Taccone’s remake of Tommy Wirkola’s 2021 film The Trip, now with Jason Segel and Samara Weaving as the spouses looking to off one another, opened to just less with $1.5 million, ranking it sixth on their all-time opener list after Dangerous Animals last June began with $1.56 million. Neither were able to best their 2024 release of Late Night with the Devil with David Dastmalchian, which started with $2.83 million. Magnolia pulled off their best opening of all-time last week with Bob Odenkirk in Ben Wheatley’s Normal ($2.55 million) which fell out of the top 10 quickly this week. Congrats to the indies taking their shot with releases in over 1,500 theaters. What’s it going to take for them to put more butts in those theaters, though?

Speaking of indies, Roadside Attractions just had its highest-grossing film since the pandemic in A Great Awakening, now with over $7.5 million. Its their highest-grossing film since 2019’s Oscar-winning Judy made almost $24 million. This week they just missed the top 10 with David MacKenzie’s Fuze starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Theo James, and Sam Worthington. It opened to $1.01 million in 1,164 theaters for their seventh-biggest launch ever. (A Great Awakening opened in 1,289 theaters.) Last year’s Kiss of the Spider Woman musical redux with Jennifer Lopez was their third-biggest ever in 1,331 theaters, and it opened to just $891,046 and grossed a total of $1.62 million. They missed out, thanks to IndieFilms’ release of American Youngboy, the concert film featuring NBA Youngboy, which ended up making $1.19 million in 583 theaters.

Disney/Pixar’s Hoppers is the first film of 2026 to have a stay in the top 10 for eight straight weeks. GOAT fell out with seven, but Hoppers hangs in there with $1.9 million to bring its domestic total to $164.1 million and over $370 million globally, making it the third-highest grossing Hollywood film of the year to date. You, Me & Tuscany added $1.5 million in its third weekend to bring its total to $17.6 million. Kat Coiro’s previous film, the day-and-date theatrical/streaming release of Marry Me with Jennifer Lopez and Owen Wilson, had made $20.2 million in its first 17 days after a $1.88 million third weekend.

In other news, Sony Classics’ BAFTA-winning I Swear grossed $640,000 in 645 theaters.Vertical Entertainment’s release of Rupert Wyatt’s Desert Warrior with Anthony Mackie, which began filming in 2021, grossed $472,111 in 1,010 theaters. The rub is the film reportedly cost $150 million with the Saudi Arabian film industry. Steven Soderbergh’s The Christophers fell to 295 theaters this weekend, and the Neon release grossed $332,850 to bring its total to $1.3 million. Finally, 20th Century Studios’ re-release of Fight Club made $219,000 over the weekend and has made $804,789 since Wednesday.

On the Vine: Will Miranda Priestly Steal Michael’s Thunder?

The summer movie season kicks off next week, not with the usual big budget, high-concept VFX Marvel film, but still a Disney film, now that they control 20th Century Studios. Expect some big numbers for The Devil Wears Prada 2 with Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci all returning. Neon has the horror film Hokum with Adam Scott, from the director of Oddity, which has a solid 97% with critics after its premiere at SXSW. Also look for Andy Serkis’ animated adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm from Angel Studios.

Full List of Box Office Results: April 24-26, 2026

1. Michael – $97.0 million ($97.0 million total)
2. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie – $21.2 million ($386.4 million total)
3. Project Hail Mary – $13.2 million ($305.4 million total)
4. Lee Cronin’s The Mummy – $5.6 million ($23.4 million total)
5. The Drama – $2.6 million ($44.8 million total)
6. Hoppers – $1.9 million ($164.1 million total)
7. You, Me & Tuscany – $1.5 million ($17.6 million total)
8. Over Your Dead Body – $1.43 million ($1.43 million total)
9. Mother Mary – $1.25 million ($1.49 million total)
10. American Youngboy – $1.19 million ($1.19 million total)

Erik Childress can be heard each week evaluating box office on Business First AM with Angela Miles and his Movie Madness Podcast. [box office figures via Box Office Mojo]

Thumbnail image by ©Lionsgate

Find Something Fresh! Discover What to Watch, Read Reviews, Leave Ratings and Build Watchlists. Download the Rotten Tomatoes App.

Source